WASHINGTON, February 17, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - What do Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, father of the sexual revolution Alfred Kinsey, Lenin, and Hitler have in common?

All these pioneers of what some call the culture of death rooted their beliefs and actions in Darwinism - a little-known fact that one conservative leader says shouldnt be ignored.

Hugh Owen of the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation told an audience on Capitol Hill before the March for Life last month that the philosophical consequences of Darwinism has totally destroyed many parts of our society.

Owen pointed to Dr. Josef Mengele, who infamously experimented on Jews during the Holocaust, Hitler himself, and other Nazi leaders as devotees of Darwinism who saw Nazism and the extermination of peoples as nothing more than a way to advance evolution. Darwinism was also the foundation of Communist ideology in Russia through Vladimir Lenin, said Owen, who showed a photograph of the only decorative item found on Lenins desk: an ape sitting on a pile of books, including Darwins Origin of Species, and looking at a skull.

Lenin sat at this desk and looked at this sculpture as he authorized the murder of millions of his fellow countrymen, because they stood in the way of evolutionary progress, Owen said. He also said accounts from communist China report that the first lesson used by the new regime to indoctrinate religious Chinese citizens was always the same: Darwin.

In America, the fruit of Darwinism simply took the form of eugenics, the belief that the human race could be improved by controlling the breeding of a population.

Owen said that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, a prominent eugenicist, promoted contraception on the principles of evolution. She saw contraception as the sacrament of evolution, because with contraception we get rid of the less fit and we allow only the fit to breed, he said. Sanger is well-known to have supported the spread of birth control, a term she coined, as the process of weeding out the unfit.

Alfred Kinsey, whose experiments in pedophilia, sadomasochism, and homosexuality opened wide the doors to sexual anarchy in the 20th century, also concluded from Darwinist principles that sexual deviations in humans were no more inappropriate than those found in the animal kingdom. Before beginning his sexual experiments, Kinsey, also a eugenicist, was a zoologist and author of a prominent biology textboook that promoted evolution.

Owen, a Roman Catholic, strongly rejected the notion that Christianity and the Biblical creation account could be reconciled with Darwinism. He recounted the story of his own father, who he said was brought up a devout Christian before losing his faith when exposed to Darwinism in college. He was to become the first ever Secretary General of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

The trajectory that led from Leeds and Manchester University to becoming Secretary General of one of the most evil organizations thats ever existed on the face of the earth started with evolution, said Owen.

Rachel Carson (author of "Silent Spring" which resulted in the DDT ban): 50-80 MILLION deaths and rising every year.

Margaret Sanger: 50 MILLION deaths worldwide EVERY YEAR (1 BILLION to 1.2 BILLION worldwide since 1900).

Stalin: 13 MILLION+ deaths.

Hitler: 12 MILLION+ deaths.

Mao: 50-80 MILLION deaths.

So, in just the last century, Darwinist atheism is responsible for the deaths of AT LEAST 1.125 BILLION INNOCENT people. (And note that this only counts the genocide that can be directly attributed to them, if the wars initiated by Stalin, Mao and Hitler were included there would be close to 100 MILLION more.)

5
posted on 02/17/2012 4:39:35 PM PST
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

Posting a creationist religious tract on other than the Religion thread is kind of like trolling don’t you think. Blaming all scientific inquiry for the abuses and inaccuracies of some is kind of like those who blame Christians in the 21st century for the inquisition. Or perhaps you would burn me at the stake while assuring me I’m damned to hell?

When that tired old strawman about TTOE leading to Eugenics was trotted out, I knew where this was going (note: there is no study of science named “Darwinism” any more than Astronomy is “Capurnicism”).

I am done here, but I wanted outside readers to know that there are many of us who understand science, how it does NOT conflict with scripture nor Christianity (or any other belief system). Clearly there are some others who are also not afraid to let their knowledge show. But many others remain silent after the Crevo wars a few years ago.

12
posted on 02/17/2012 5:07:55 PM PST
by freedumb2003
(Spoiler Alert! The secret to Terra Nova: THEY ARE ALL DEAD!!!)

Well I suggest you get me zapped from FR. I don’t know of anything called Darwinism or evolutionism, they sound like religions to me. In point of fact, I am opposed to abortion as I know from science that a unique human being is created at the moment of conception. Those DNA merchants of death came up with that.

The misuse of a science can not discredit science as the misuse is anti-science. Science doesn’t prove, disprove or invent values. I get my values from Christianity and truthfulness is one of them. Value of human life and all life for that matter is another.

The idea that being evolve to a normatively better condition is nonsense from the latter part of the 19th and early part of the twentieth century. If an organism survives, it reproduces. That’s all. What use that is put to by men is up to men and the value of that use can not be proven. Science may be used in a cult of death but it does not produce the cult.

A pound of c4 may be used in building a highway or attached to a terrorist’s belt. The explosion it produces is the same and a scientist built the explosive but did not dictate how it was used. The same analogy works for the theory of evolution. By the same token, the theory is not now identical to the 19th century theory, it has evolved if you will.

What do Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, father of the sexual revolution Alfred Kinsey, Lenin, and Hitler have in common?

I dont know. They all kept cats as pets? They all enjoyed ice cream?

That should be reason enough to kill all cats and outlaw ice cream. /sarcasm

The Darwin family produced, developed, and lead (I think you meant led here, unless you are really blaming Charles Darwin for lead poisoning¨ too) the eugenics movement for nearly a century. This is not an opinion, it is a statement of fact.

Divorcing the Darwin family from the evils of eugenics and focusing on science would be like crediting Hitler for the Autobahn and ignoring the Holocaust.

Well Hitler did build some very good roads that are still in use today by many Germans who still drive on them in their VWs.

And two out of four of Ronald Regans kids are stark raving lunatic leftists. Just saying.

I would divorce the theory of evolution from the Darwin family. There was no ownership of the theory any more than by Wallace or Huxley. All made observations and made a hypothesis that became a theory that has and will change in many aspects. All of the men made mistakes and had their own set of values. Interesting history but not central to today’s science.

Eugenics was and is a horrible set of ideas and practices. Like AGW today, men twisted science to justify their politics. Their experimentation was ill informed and twisted by racial and ethnic hatreds. Much of what Sanger did fit with her racial and class bigotry. Like others she used and twisted the science of the day to fit. Good grief, so called scientists counted bumps on people’s heads and measured skulls to support preconceived prejudices.

Today’s science is in danger of similar misuse. Only good science will out bad science. Already the politicized “scientists” are moving to climate change over global warming which is a move in the right direction. I’d like to see a well controlled study of just what happens to the co2 we are putting out but as long as worshipers of Gaia prevail, that isn’t likely.

Today’s moves toward euthanasia and population control by abortion have more to do with utilitarianism than science. Stalin and Mao produced their own perverted religions to justify their killing and we are moving closer to that religion — Marxism.

Spirited: Ideas have consequences precisely because all men really do have two sides, a dark side easily seduced by evil hence prone to doing wrong and a light side, defined here as an unsullied conscience in search of moral good.

Geology and physics are not deviously disguised Godless cosmogonies as Darwinism is, therefore do not pose the danger that Darwinism poses.

Darwinism is not empirical science but rather a metaphysical evolutionary cosmogony whose tap-root stretches back to the Enuma Elish, the ancient evolutionary cosmogony of Sumeria and Babylonia.

Symbolically, Darwinism is Sauron’s One Ring of power. It’s immediate appeal is to the dark side of man because it holds that while all mem evolved out of pre-existing pond scum, some evolved men are nevertheless superior to the all others due to a predestination-process known as natural selection.

The greatest irony of all is that Darwinism denies man’s sin nature out of one side of its mouth, while out of the other loudly proclaiming his guilt by holding up a bright blood-red neon-arrow blinking out the message: man is a liar, thief, and murderer guilty of enslaving torturing and murderering millions of men, women, and children.

When that tired old strawman about TTOE leading to Eugenics was trotted out, I knew where this was going (note: there is no study of science named Darwinism any more than Astronomy is Capurnicism). I am done here, but I wanted outside readers to know that there are many of us who understand science, how it does NOT conflict with scripture nor Christianity (or any other belief system). Clearly there are some others who are also not afraid to let their knowledge show. But many others remain silent after the Crevo wars a few years ago.

TTOE is anti-Creator. Darwinists would not demand the removal of the Creator from their houses of worship IF the TTOE did not conflict with the Scripture. Oh, Scripture does not claim or even hint this earth is young. Liberals love using that unholy scientific methodology and the blind are rooting around for acorns.

Darwinism is not empirical science but rather a metaphysical evolutionary cosmogony whose tap-root stretches back to the Enuma Elish, the ancient evolutionary cosmogony of Sumeria and Babylonia.

Theories in physics and chemistry can usually be subjected to empirical tests or observations. More importantly, the theories are subjected to many attempts to falsify them thus increasing our confidence as they survive such attempts (Popper).

Evolution, by contrast, would fall in the historical sciences category - along the same lines as anthropology, archeology and Egyptology. The theory is a "just so" story built around spotty evidence (quantizations) in the geological record (a continuum.)

In the former sciences - the hard sciences - the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. In the historical sciences, the reverse is true - after all, the record is spotty at best.

And so the historical sciences get away with making a lot of claims where validity is granted based on the credentials of the speaker or the popularity of the claim among his peers. There are few means to falsify such claims by objective observation or empirical tests.

And so many people take their claims as confidently as if it were spoken by a physicist or chemist. But they are not comparable and should not be valued the same.

It is absolutely tragic, in my view, that evolution theory was taken as scientifically credible reasoning to devalue human life whether via socialism, communism, sorting, culling, killing, breeding, abortion, infanticide or other eugenics - or affects of atheism and extreme animal rights activism.

If one accepts evolution as a necessary and inevitable force in nature then on what basis would a person object to weeding out the unfit?

It rather depends upon whom it is doing the defining of unfit. Whether or not one accepts evolution as a necessary and inevitable force in nature. Dont you think? For instance, we can imagine that most 0bmatrons would be pleased to define Conservative Christians, and most Conservatives in general, as unfit.

I understood Darwinism to not exist (according to all the best representatives of Science). Do you, perchance, have in mind the Darwinian Theory of Evolution and its logical corollary, the theory of the survival of the fittest)?

But, using your expression Darwinism for the moment, permit me to observe that Darwinism possesses no personality and lacks the ability to define anything. It is those who use the term who define the unfit. Defining the unfit is a favorite pastime of Darwinian mullahs and imans, so does your horizon expand to include religious and political Darwinism, in which case we would have to declare the Aztecs and the ancient Egyptians unfit, or does it have no connotations other than scientific, and can therefore lead us to no religious or political conclusions?

Be my guest, by all means. But I think your appellation to be misplaced. The briefest perusal of merely some of the excerpts of antagonist comments (speaking of pettifoggery) on the threads main thesis should be sufficient to illustrate that Mendelian genetics is not at the heart of these discussions:

Dont forget those evil Geologists And them Physicists. And dont even get me started on them damned for all time Astrophysicists and Chemists. Or perhaps you would burn me at the stake while assuring me Im damned to hell? Those darn physicists and their theory of gravity that they use to help calculate the use of BOMBS! When that tired old strawman about TTOE leading to Eugenics was trotted out, I knew where this was going (note: there is no study of science named Darwinism any more than Astronomy is Capurnicism) And what about heliocentrism? Theres another absolutely diabolical doctrine started by so-called scientists. The Earth is the center of the universe, and these infernal allegations that it is round ... dont get me started. I say we burn down the observatory... Well I suggest you get me zapped from FR. I dont know of anything called Darwinism or evolutionism, they sound like religions to me.

The historical record is pretty clear that what so exited Marx about Darwins magnificent insight was that he saw in the theory a confirmation of his (Marxs) thesis that God does not exist. A number of modern eminent scientists, such as Richard Dawkins, have carried this idea even further in proposing that the question of Gods existence is an issue for Science (we must assume he means all of science) to determine, and that the answer is, no, God does not exist. Thus has the argument of all scientists of Atheist persuasion become that science generally, and evolution specifically proves that God does not exist.

What I find more than passing strange is that, of all the laws and theories discovered and developed by Science, more than any other it is the Theory of Evolution that has inspired so many eminent scientists to conclude that; 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. And, remarkably, all this in blatant defiance of their (the scientists) own rules of scientific methodology.

In fact, a resort to Science generally, and Evolution specifically, has become all Liberalisms default position in its ongoing effort to deny the existence of the Judeo-Christian tradition in Western Civilization culture, and the marvel of American Exceptionalism. It is not Science, but Christianity, Western Civilization and American Exceptionalism that are under attack in our society, and it is the corruptions and perversions of Science that are being used as a primary weapon attacking Christianity, Western Civilization and American Exceptionalism. Indeed, all Liberalism (that is, all Socialist/Marxist thought) seemly stands ready now to proclaim all three unfit. Even 0bama, himself, has deemed it proper to recently proclaim that the free enterprise system, the very rock of Christianity, Western Civilization and American Exceptionalism, has never been fit.

Those who come into this forum under the color of defending Science would do well to direct their fire at the corruption of the science of climate change and at the perversions of science that it claims proves God does not exist. We have to think that the fact that they do not do so is no accident.

Of course anyone can grab the phrase, survival of the fittest and apply to whatever they wish with the same desire to appear to appeal to an immutable force that is functioning in the background.

Of course. So you do understand (and apparently agree with) my point.

So does your horizon expand to include religious and political Darwinism, or does Darwinism, for you, have no connotations other than scientific, with no following religious or political conclusions?

As a scientist, I object strongly to the characterization of the central theory of my discipline as a crackpot religion. There is, in fact, no religious belief called “Darwinism”. Nor is there a branch of science called “Darwinism”. Unless there is Newtonism, Einsteinism, Gallileoism, etc. Or would those be religious beliefs?

Some atheists might try to use the theory of evolution as “proof” of the nonexistance of God, but the ToE cannot prove that any more than any other branch of science.

I don’t need to point out that the use/misuse of science is completely in the hands of the scientist. Several people have already pointed that out in this thread.

45
posted on 02/19/2012 12:35:35 PM PST
by exDemMom
(Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)

As a scientist, I object strongly to the characterization of the central theory of my discipline as a crackpot religion.

Are you speaking of the theory of evolution or Darwinism as a whole?

There is, in fact, no religious belief called Darwinism.

Religion is defined as a system of beliefs.

EVERYONE has a system of beliefs by which they run their lives and EVERYONE, whether they will admit it or or even aware of it, believes that their system of beliefs is superior to all others. Now, this does not mean that a person's declared religion is actually their governing system of beliefs, but the FACT is that every person has something that they devoutly worship whether it's God, Satan, science, their own intellect or something else.

Unless there is Newtonism, Einsteinism, Gallileoism, etc. Or would those be religious beliefs?

See above.

Some atheists might try to use the theory of evolution as proof of the nonexistance of God, but the ToE cannot prove that any more than any other branch of science.

I learned years ago not to really concern myself with evolution. While evolution may be the "public face" of Darwinism, it has ALWAYS been a secondary concern to Darwinists. What they have done is to USE evolution to justify their evil agenda, Hitler's idea of a "master race" is nothing more than a restatement of "survival of the fittest."

Moreover, I don't see where Darwinists have ever really spent much time trying to prove the nonexistence of God; however, they have spent a great deal of time playing god with the entire world.

I dont need to point out that the use/misuse of science is completely in the hands of the scientist.

No, but the CORE belief of Darwinism is eugenics and eugenics isn't science at all, it is an evil philosophy that has ravaged the world for over a century.

I posted this the other day, but here's what Darwinist atheism gets us:

Rachel Carson (author of "Silent Spring" which resulted in the DDT ban): 50-80 MILLION deaths and rising every year.

Margaret Sanger: 50 MILLION deaths worldwide EVERY YEAR (1 BILLION to 1.2 BILLION worldwide since 1900).

Stalin: 13 MILLION+ deaths.

Hitler: 12 MILLION+ deaths.

Mao: 50-80 MILLION deaths.

So, in just the last century, Darwinist atheism is responsible for the deaths of AT LEAST 1.125 BILLION INNOCENT people. (And note that this only counts the genocide that can be directly attributed to them, if the wars initiated by Stalin, Mao and Hitler were included there would be close to 100 MILLION more.)

If you research the Darwin family (especially Francis Galton and Leonard Darwin), you will see that many abandoned scientific pursuits early on and embraced eugenics. It is IMPOSSIBLE to divorce the Darwin family from eugenics and to pretend that this isn't their true "religion" would require one to totally ignore over a century of evil.

46
posted on 02/20/2012 6:20:58 AM PST
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

I learned years ago not to really concern myself with evolution. While evolution may be the "public face" of Darwinism, it has ALWAYS been a secondary concern to Darwinists. What they have done is to USE evolution to justify their evil agenda, Hitler's idea of a "master race" is nothing more than a restatement of "survival of the fittest."

Indeed - it was a breeding programs like we use for livestock to get the best inheritable traits.

Indeed - it was a breeding programs like we use for livestock to get the best inheritable traits.

Excellent point.

God gave man dominion over animals, so it is permissible to do this, but even then it's an imperfect science. Look at horse racing, there hasn't been a Triple Crown winner in over thirty years; however, the science behind breeding (genetics, etc.), veterinary medicine, and nutrition are light years beyond what they were in the 1970s.

We will NEVER achieve perfection, but we can accept that we are perfect in that He created each of us EXACTLY THE WAY He wanted to.

49
posted on 02/20/2012 6:43:53 AM PST
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

No, but the CORE belief of Darwinism is eugenics and eugenics isn't science at all, it is an evil philosophy that has ravaged the world for over a century.

Once again, there is no religion of Darwinism. As far as I can tell, the term is used to try to discredit a theory of science that *some* people feel somehow threatens Christianity. I do have faith that, eventually, people will get over this perceived threat to Christianity, just like they got over the supposed antitheistic theory of heliocentrism. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the Catholic church un-excommunicated Galileo, within the last few decades.

Science concerns itself purely with what can be observed and measured in a systematic fashion. It does not, and cannot, concern itself with the metaphysical. We do not, and never will, have the ability to definitively prove or disprove the existence of God. Anyone who tries to claim that science proves that God doesn't exist (whether they're using the ToE or some other theory as their justification) is a liar.

Furthermore, the use of science as a rationale for committing atrocities is not a condemnation of science. Someone who is set on committing atrocities and who has the power is going to do so, no matter what. It isn't because of some pseudoreligion called "Darwinism" that Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Pol-Pot, etc., committed their atrocities. They did that because they were fundamentally evil people, drunk with their own power.

If studying or using the theory of evolution has some strange power to turn people into monsters, then I must ask: why aren't thousands of scientists like myself busy committing atrocities right this minute? Could it be because our sense of morality does not come from the scientific theories that guide our research in the lab, but comes from our families and society?

One last point. Those of us who make science our careers do not worship science, any more than musicians worship music or accountants worship ledgers. It's just a profession.

50
posted on 02/20/2012 7:20:40 AM PST
by exDemMom
(Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.